The best part of AOE 3 was revolutions. The ability to sacrifice economy for instant troops was amazing and brings back awesome memories. Especially in 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4 matches. So why not bring this awesome mechanic into AOE4?? I was thinking every muslim civ could call Jihad and turn its workers to weaker versions of man at arms. Also town centers would produce jihad warriors instead of villagers. Ottomans will have a great advantage with this since they dont need resources to produce units. They will finally climb the ladder of greatest civs. Of course this option will have great drawback like if the push does not succeed, the opponent would would simply outboom you in economy. Another way is to do it with a time limit where all of the warriors revert to normal villagers again at which point they could be easily destroyed.
It only really worked for aoe3 because of the setting, and even then it was a terrible mechanic, even in aoe3 de with the updates I dont beileve its very popular outside of Mexico. Flemish revolution in aoe2 has proved that getting instant army at the cost of ur whole economy in an rts like age of empires doesnt work well for the games balance.
Hahah, good luck suggesting that in this politically correct climate.
We have a soft implementation of this with Byzantines: activating Arkitoi Defense in a Cistern giving attack and defense for 30 seconds. We have the Kremlin landmark giving tickets to summon temporary defenders.
Gives me wc3 human militia vibes. Most ways we see this kind of ability used is in a defensive way. Using it aggressively has a lot of potential risks, like losing economy if they convert back to villagers, or the tempo loss from villagers no longer collecting. A finishing blow, all in, kind of strategy.
I like bold strategies like this, I think having more high risk high reward abilities would be awesome!
Why??? Im not talking about terrorism or anything like that. If you know your history well you would know that jihad was called multiple times in history not only for war but other things too. It is a way to overcome an obstacle that plagues all of the community. I wish that christians were also organized like that.
Jihad is a complex word with multiple meanings. It translates to âstruggleâ, which has often meant a personal struggle against passions and impulses, to debate over ideology and politics.
In a war setting Jihad can take on a defensive and offensive implication, as in defending oneself from an aggressor vs a pre-emptive attack against an enemy state. It also applies to the rules of warfare, such as rules against attacking non-combatants, respecting burial rights of the enemy dead, or the protection of property (scorched earth tactics being prohibited).
Because of the nature of war being struggle it is often regarded that way, but the word is deeply complex and means so much more than a terrorist action or whatever would be considered politically incorrect. At the very least it fits into the historical setting, especially considering they are adding an entire crusader sub faction to the game.
In that era, âCrusadeâ, unlike âJihadâ, has no meaning outside of religious war.
Think about the fact they replaced wine with olive oil for Byzantine before launch. Thatâs the level we are at. So Iâm pretty sure they arenât going to add sensitive things like Jihad for the Muslim civs, or sacrifices for native civs if theyâre ever going to add them. Anything that elicits strong emotions is out of the question.
That is just sad man. We are making it worse by discussing it in the first place. They changed wine really??? Why??? Is not wine the blood of Christ??? Anyway if Jihad is such strong word they may just call it holy war or something like that it does not matter to me.
As far as I know, I havenât heard from any official source that confirms this rumor.
-
Historicity.- Olive trees and olive oil have always been a vital commodity for the Byzantine economy, so itâs only natural that they considered using them as a fifth resource and for mercenary functions.
-
3d Models.- On the other hand, olive trees grow on olive âTrees,â the grapes used to make wine grow on âVines,â and if you look closely at the model used for farms, they use âOlive Trees.â 3D models are something that takes time, especially since they released a teaser for them three months before the DLC, so itâs not something that was changed at the last minute.
-
Winery Landmark.- If the rumor is about the âWineryâ Landmark, they needed a well-known historical landmark that would store food products in barrels to give farms an extra bonus, but there are no known landmarks that could store oil. This one was used because wine was the closest, and the design is nice. About the design, I would say it is really based on a traditional Orthodox monastery with its wine cellar and wine press next to it. It is known from archaeology that many monasteries had a vineyard and storehouse next to it, to be self-sufficient, so it would reflect that. The original monastery in Jerusalem at the present Dome of the Rock ( Monastery of the Virgins), Mount Athos ( The Wine Trade on Mount Athos), Cremisan Monastery, and others) had it. The wiki says it looks like Mar Saba, but I donât really see any similarity, so itâs debatable.
Also try searching on your own, because rumors sometimes abound, and even the Wiki fandom makes mistakes:
- Berkshire Castle.- Until recently, the wiki fandom said that the landmark âBerkshire Castleâ was based on York Castle, but thatâs a lie: while there isnât a palace there, there was a âCastleâ that served as a palace in Berkshire, Windsor, whose barbican gate and high Keep are the basis for the landmarkâs design. Iâve since corrected that.
Regarding the idea of ââRevolutions, you need to keep a few things in mind:
1) Pistols vs. Sowing Hoes
In AoE 3, the revolution works because villagers in the 1800s armed themselves with mass-produced rifles, which in theory would be capable of killing someone with a single shot, and used them without much training.
In the Middle Ages and AoE 4, on the other hand, peasants didnât have the money to arm themselves, and if they did, they would use their farm tools, becoming levies. In fact, the spearmen and archers of the Feudal Age in most civs already represent precisely that poorly trained levy.
2).- âAoE3 Time period Revolutions vs. AoE4 Time period Revolutionsâ
On the other hand, in AoE3, it can be represented because revolutions were successful in creating new countries, but in the Middle Ages, the most common examples of peasant revolutions usually ended with them being suppressed by rulers with well-armed, or at least âarmed,â armies, or by peasants surrendering.
3).- Jihad was not a revolution
Jihad was the term for war in defense of Islam, whether against infidels or to defend Islam in any way.
It wasnât that someone neglected their obligations in the fields and went to fight. Islam also establishes that one must fulfill oneâs responsibilities. War was waged in times when farming was no longer possible, and levies were recruited there. Right at that point, people were really enlisting to fight en masse. The system varied between Islamic kingdoms:
-
In the Delhi Sultanate, the mass production of enlisted soldiers is well represented by the academics.
-
In Abbasid, it should be, but it isnât. I suppose because the creators gave them so many economic bonuses that they considered ignoring the broad recruitment spirit they should have, more for balance than anything else.
4. âAny possibility of mechanics like Ragnarok or Revolutions in AoE IV?â
Yes, but not for all civs.
It should be noted that recruiting temporary or permanent militias is something that several civs had. The Byzantines already have the âAkritoi Defenseâ and the Rus, their own ticket militia.
In the case of a âtemporaryâ system similar to the Byzantine system:
-
Italian Civs.- Such as Venice, Genoa, Milan, the Lombard League, Florence, etc. Their armies were based on heavily armed militias. While this could be summarized as better âMilita Pearmansâ and âMilitia Archers,â they could also give it a boost by temporarily returning military units to the villagers for a short period of time.
-
Flemish.- Their armies were militias, even the wealthy traders shoulf fight if the city were in danger.
I can only think of two examples of civs with mechanics similar to Ragnarok:
-
Norses.- To represent the Great Pagan Army and the Viking raids before they became Christian. In the Imperial Age, they could have some technology similar to Ragnarok to mobilize all villagers as soldiers, driven by the Norse religious faith.
-
Swedes.- For the Vasa period in the Imperial Age. Many peasants rebelled against the Kalmar Union government in favor of Gustav Vasa, and then also âagainstâ Gustav Vasa, when they realized that he had only used them to create a dictatorship in which they would lose all privileges, and even their faith.
Yes I meant as a game mechanic not like a revolution in aoe3. I think I explained this. Here is my 2 cents if you will. I thing the risk of starting a ârevolutionâ should greater than the gain. That way it will not become a cheese that can be used in 1vs1. However in other types of matches like 3vs3 or 4vs4 if some player is lacking behind he/she can use the revolution to get themselves back into the game provided other players support them with resources. Also can be used offensively to make extra push when you need the most.
It would be for some, because for me it was one of the worst things that AOE 3 had, I didnât like it, I tried to never get revolution me xD
Are you talking about 1vs1 or more than two players?? Because in 3 vs 3 is awesome when someone decides to risk it all on a revolution push. Sometimes 3vs3 and 4vs4 can drag out and the game becomes stalemate. This is not the case with AOE4 because of the limited resources but it can still go on for many hours. In this case a revolution will help I think.